Perspectives

(092112)

Life on Mars

Questions:

If
there was or is life on Mars, does that mean life has its origin on Mars?

What
are the implications for life's origins elsewhere in the universe?

What
if life only exists on Earth and never anywhere else?

Short Answer:

By now scientists
realize carbon and water are necessary for life. There is no practical alternative
to carbon. Water is incredible in its numerous roles, like no other chemical,
it's a solvent, lubricant, buffer, filler, and jack of all trades to life's
being! Furthermore, conditions are uniform throughout the universe and thus
apply to all other "possible life forms" anywhere in the cosmos.
So, what of water, carbon, and possibly life on Mars?

Scientists
now know that a magnetic field was lost to Mars about 4 billion years
ago. Soon after losing this protective field, Mars lost the bulk of its atmosphere
and water. Residual water may exist today, but oceans have not covered the red planet
since the time life first appeared on earth (ca. 3.8 to 3.9 BYA).

Another
interesting prospect is that life may have existed for a 'brief time' on Mars. But
was life's origin Mars- or Earth-based! Any evidence for life on Mars, coming
to us in the form of meteorites (i.e. rocks ejected from Mars) later arriving
on Earth, may simply reflect a round trip visit to Mars and back (more on
this later).

Academic and NASA funded astro-biologists actively seek data that might indicate life existed or still clings to the Red Planet. Microbial life on Earth that live in extreme environments provide researchers examples of what might still populate the harsher environs of present day Mars. However, until there is concrete proof for life, past or present, factors required to sustain a meaningful presence of life on Mars appear under represented. The hope for finding life there may simply be stronger than the thin potential reality.

As
briefly noted below (with a more extensive reference on life's origins cited at the end of this article), recent studies of a Martian
meteorite are inconclusive to establishing any certainty of past or present
life originating from Mars. In fact, while one can anticipate evidence for
ancient water on Mars, the data's interpretation may only to lead to uncertain
conclusions and false assumptions for life on Mars.

Finally,
be aware that materialist minds (e.g. within NASA and elsewhere in academia)
will hold to the prospect for signs of life on Mars or elsewhere in our solar
system— including moons to any planet or beyond to the cosmos at large.
This hope is held in the face of growing evidence, from Earth and the cosmos
at large, that life does not arise by chance. Yet, those activities
continuing the search for life keep alive appeals for funding and further
research. The lack of evidence and the counter evidence to life's origin by
chemical means has not stopped such appeals.

Consider This:

Building
Expectations

We've been thinking
about and looking for life on Mars for some time now! The Viking lander was
sent to Mars back in mid-1970s. Viking 1 was launched on August 20, 1975 and
arrived at Mars on June 19, 1976. The Viking 2 Lander touched down at Utopia
Planitia on September 3, 1976:

... But Viking was more than any voyage of Columbus. Not only might it have decided
finally the question of life on Mars but, far more significantly,
because Mars is the only planet in our solar system capable of supporting
any sort of life, the Viking mission was likely therefore to
be the only chance humanity would ever have of establishing the existence
of extraterrestrial life by direct contact. Denton
(ETC) Page 255

Even before launching
missions to Mars, there was good reason to doubt the viability of life on
Mars. Dr. James Lovelock, in his book "Ages
of Gaia," notes that even when working for NASA—at the Jet
Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, California—he was aware that the search
for life on Mars would be fruitless. That's not to say life never inhabited
Mars, but that the present atmosphere there today is too unfavorable (just
look at the NASA photo from Viking, above).

... For anyone
interested in the nature and origin of life, the reports that were
sent out from Pasadena over the next few months were of unprecedented
significance.

At issue was the fundamental
question as to whether life is unique to Earth. Science can only deal
with repeatable or recurrent events. A unique or very improbable event
can never be the subject of scientific investigation. If life is unique
to Earth then this means that it has only arisen once in all cosmic
history, which would essentially exclude any sort of scientific approach
to the problem of its origin. Before the study of the origin of life
can be put on a serious scientific footing, the possibility that life
is unique to earth has to be excluded. Denton
(ETC) Page 255

If naturalistic
processes explain everything in the universe, then life on Earth is likely
not an exclusive event. Popular figures in science have made statements keeping
naturalism's key hopes alive:

As
American astronomer Carl Sagan remarks in his book IntelligentLife in the Universe:

" ... the discovery
of life on one other plant —e.g. Mars—can, in the words
of the American physicist Philip Morrison, of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, "transformed the origin of life from a miracle to a
statistic." Denton (ETC) Page 252

However,
Dr. Sagan's comment belittles the more recent and growing awareness to the
impossible. As is made clear in WindowView's other science articles, the
reverse scenario is likely true. Interesting, it's the empirical (scientific)
data that lead us to such conclusions! Naturalistic origins (assumed by materialist
and Darwinist) come with no feasible explanation—even after decades
of scientific research. Examined from every possible perspective, life
on Earth cannot be directly explained by science alone.

Until
the scientific community comes to grips with the evidence we now have, we'll
continue to hear the questions: Was there ever life on Mars? (Possibly!) But
how? Might life still exist on the red planet? Would evidence for life there
prove life originated on Mars?

Reality
Sets In

Some grand assumptions
have been made concerning life on Mars. Recent findings concerning the atmosphere,
subsurface water, and polar ice all add to the speculation. Other evidence
based on Martian meteorites also fuels enthusiasm. We'll briefly visit a number
of these issues here. We also recommend a recent book that goes into all this greater detail.

Concerning water
on the red planet, we now know that due to a loss of the Martian magnetic
field, some four billion years ago, solar winds stripped the red planet of
its surface waters. A recent episode of PBS's NOVA (Magnetic
Storm, first aired in 2003) makes this point clear. This process
would have taken some millions of years, but the result is a planet inhospitable
to life. Without Earth's magnetic field, the same loss of water would occur
here, too.

Concerning Life's Origin
-- Mount Rushmore on Mars?

Preliminary
data can create exciting possibilities. The now famous face on Mars
was the subject of print, radio, and television reports for years. And
if used without the more recent higher resolution photos may have perpetuated
myth and speculation. A low resolution image (on left) suggests a monument
exists on Mars—perhaps left by ancient hominid like beings.

But
new data reveal a mount (upper right and enlarged below) that is weathered
and cut in a much more arbitrary fashion. The 'mouth' is not as consistent
a feature as suggested previously and the lack of other features elsewhere
on the planet gives little support to the original speculation.

Closer examination
with the aid of higher resolution photos from another NASA mission reveals
a geology of mere coincidence. A pattern of evenly dispersed erosion all around this feature. While
the faces on Mt. Rushmore are the product of intelligent agents, the
weathering of this feature on Mars does not show the specificity nor
the durability of a monument engineered to endure time. And it might
be just as possible to see 'something' in the details by turning the
picture around 180 degrees.

When water existed
on Mars, might life have occurred then? This question puts us back to the
very same set of considerations for life's origin on Earth (or anywhere else
for that matter!). Some scientists propose life originated elsewhere and was
transported to Earth (i.e. panspermia). Again, if there are hurdles to life's
origins on Earth, the same constraints apply everywhere. Putting off the location
to life's origin does not solve the problem.

There are immense
problems to assuming life evolved from a solution of free chemicals. (For
related issues, see our article on chemical
evolution).

The time factor
for 'chemical evolution' and even the improbable nature to chemicals concentrating
on planet Earth in a fashion making a way to life is discussed in great detail
by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen in: The Mystery of Life's Origin (see below).

For example, life's
origin must come with the means to provide all the necessary chemicals, not
a few, but an entire array of biomolecules! From the starter molecules must
come a means to operate a form of metabolism. Not just one or two steps but
entire arrays of steps making numerous complex pathways. This complexity depends
on molecular machinery that manufactures molecules, as in protein production,
but further, replication that passes on the production capability to successive
offspring (cell or organism, either way). And there are so many "chicken
or egg came first" questions to be answered. RNA, DNA and Proteins support
life activities we see in cells today. Which of these chemicals came first?
How did they "know" what was needed to make life operate? These
are chemicals that are essentially rich with information. Where did the information
come from!

Only a few daring
academics, scientific researchers and philosophers of science, have concerned
themselves with the complexity and specificity of information that must exist
to coordinate, direct, and maintain life. Metaphysical implications may apply
here. But why does that scare away the prospects for productive research funding!
It has, so far. Yet, NO ONE knows, in a material sense, where such information
could come from. Saying it happened by chance is nowhere within the realm
of what is probable (to the point of being impossible).

What is particularly
confounding are the factors necessary to explain evolution of cells and thereafter
on to organisms with complex body plans. Many of these are now known to come
with sudden appearances (see our companion articles on Cambrian
explosion and fossils).

And if life's
appearance from simple chemicals is improbable on Earth, then there is even
less opportunity for such an occurrence on Mars—especially with its
ancient loss of water and present surface climate.

As the astronomer Hugh
Ross puts it, signs of life previously living on Mars should be no surprise.
Indeed, matter ejected from Earth and Mars, has traveled between both planets.
Seeding life on Mars, with Earth as the source may be a true example of panspermia,
but hardly proof that such seeding would have brought life to Earth in the
first place. Again, one must consider all the hurdles for life's assumed naturalistic
origin to make a holistic assessment. So far, such thinking falls short and
many scenarios end up like a wishful game of drawing straws (see Rana
and Ross, also Thaxton, et al.).

The hurdles to establishing
the first life forms are so great that we run into the kind of odds Lee Spetner
finds in his analysis for naturalistic evolution (see Not
by Chance). The odds don't favor life by chance. So, think over the entire
landscape of what works, what is practical, possible, and even likely. We
expect really incredible observations to come out from science, but we are
weary of proposals based on the improbable—headliner sensational interpretations
are best left to the grocery market tabloids.

Reasons
to Believe: It's Only an Interesting Artifact!

The title
above is a play on words. First we recognize a long overdue contribution by
two scientists at Reasons To Believe (i.e. Drs. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross)
as presented in their book:"Origins
of Life—Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off." Chapter 14
of this book makes a review of what science has learned from a Martian meteorite
(pictured below on the left).

ALH84001

Is this a
microfossil of a bacterium?

A rock, weighing
4 pounds and tagged with the ID ALH84001 was a sensational source for the
nightly news back in 1996. This tiny hunk of Mars had traveled some 16 million
years from Mars to Earth, then rested on the Allan Hills region of Antarctica
for some 13,000 years before being gathered and placed in storage for another
nine years. Once examined a number of indicators, possibly for signs of life,
were described by scientists. The rock's surface revealed:

carbonate globules
similar to those produced by Earth's life

polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that are associated on Earth with the death
and remnants of life

magnetic mineral
crystals like those associated with certain bacteria

apparent microfossils,
perhaps very tiny bacteria

Potassium-argon
dating put the meteorite at about 4.56 billion years of age. This is the oldest
known rock from any planet. Yet, the speculation is that the evidences above
are all indicators of life on Mars. At least the evidence was present on the
rock at the time it was ejected into the solar system and then traveled on
an earthbound trajectory.

Transverse section

Carbonate
deposits

"Microfossils"

A full description
as to why each of the evidences above are inconclusive is given by Drs. Rana
and Ross's book "Origins of Life" (see book link below).

In brief, research
that came after the initial NASA announcements and speculations about Mars-based
life reveal the carbonates are of questionable origin. They can be explained
based on shock melting (at high or low temperatures) and thus are not conclusively
due to life's presence. The PAHs can also be the result of the same melting.

The presence of
carbon based compounds are likely the result of contamination resulting from
exposure to the earth's environment, even in the Antarctic. The meteorite's
carbon-14 appears to be associated with the PAHs and there should be no such
carbon in old material from Mars, especially after a long trip across near
space. Carbon-14 would have all been depleted (by radioactive decay) if it
had been of Mars origin.

The magnetic crystals
associated with a few species on earth also appear not to be those on the
meteorite.

The most provocative
evidence is the electron micrographs of what appear to be fossils of bacteria.
However, as summarized in detail by Rana and Ross, the presumed microfossils
are too small and are also likely artifacts of the microscopy preparation
used to visualize the meteorite's surface.

Life
Support On Mars

Earlier, we referred
to the atmosphere as another problem:

"In
addition, the Martian atmosphere has always been thinner than Earth's,
thus exposing its surface to more ultraviolet radiation and hastening
the departure of water. A thinner atmosphere would imply fewer resources
for emerging life to exploit. Ultraviolet radiation would impair, if
not shut down, prebiotic chemical pathways." Origins
of Life, Rana and Ross, 2004, page 194.

There are actually
a host of problems with an origin to life on Mars. It takes a book length
discussion to cover many of the details. We've only begun to get a glimpse
of the issues here. Again, be aware of the short window of opportunity for
life on Earth to be transported by rocks (meteorites in reverse travel) arriving
on Mars. Rana and Ross indicate that NASA now has the technology to find traces
of life's signature on Mars. If so, might they be detecting remnants of life
from Earth that long ago was transported to Mars. How long that life remained
viable is another question. Evidence and conditions for a sustained presence
of life on Mars is not encouraging—quite to the contrary—sources
of carbon and water are missing.

It is the hope
of the materialist mind that Mars was once a point of origin to life. This
is vain hope in the face of evidence we have today—also, it is ever
more evident that life arouse spontaneously on Earth, in the instant the earth
was hospitable to life's presence. Such an occurrence flies in the face of
naturalistic scenarios. Again, this topic is also addressed with stunning
details by Rana and Ross in "Origins of Life."

Added Perspective:

In preparing this
and related life origin articles for WindowView, we've made a strong recommendation
to consider issues covered by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen (in their book: The Mystery of Life's Origin—Reassessing Current
Theories; published in 1984) and the Rana
and Ross book (Origins of Life, published 2004 ).
Each of these works draws on a number of scientific articles and books that
provide a broad base to support the issues as presented. Seeing the complexity
to our material reality makes for sobering conclusions—even metaphysical
conclusions. All this is essentially a process of building perspectives. Yet,
the approach of these books is not presently adopted in the main stream, simply
because they bring us to the conclusion of design and life's origin stemming
from the actions of an intelligence, Designer, and even a Creator's will.

If you have doubts,
read these books. They are scholarly and present credible arguments. In the
near future, the topics considered here will ultimately be recognized by the
scientific community at large, because all avenues bring us to the discussions
published in these works. These are written and presented by scientists on
the basis of scientific perspectives. The implications are indeed metaphysical,
but then not every physical event or condition can be explained by physical
cause and effect relationship. And we need not look to Mars to see life's
wonders and purpose. They are before us, right here on Earth.

To
compliment the information concerning life's origin on earth and the probability
of life formerly finding its way to Mars, we encourage a reading of the
book pictured on the left. Origins of Life, published in 2004 by Drs.
Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. The text is easy to read and provides updated
information not presented by Thaxton, et al., in their "The Mystery
of Life's Origin." In fact, the latter title is out of print and
somewhat difficult to find.

References of Interest

The Mystery of Life's Origin by Thaxton,
Bradley and Olsen is a landmark in scientific assessments (click on the book cover image to download the book in PDF).

Writer / Editor: Dr. T. Peterson, Director,
WindowView.org

(090204)

The WindowView drops many of the typical presumptions to take another look. What does scientific data tell us if we start without assumptions? And ... how contiguous is science information if examined along with scriptural perspectives provided by the Bible? The Bible is the only religious or holy book we know of that is in fact consistent with science. While not a textbook, the Scriptures are either contradictory or complementary to scientific perspectives. Have you looked at these perspectives? To see 'Science and Scripture in Harmony' is to reveal life, reality, and your future.

For a general listing of books, visit the WindowView Book Page for: Science and Scripture .

Additional References of Interest

Step Up To Life

Time spent looking ... through a window on life and choice ... brings the opportunity to see in a new light. The offer for you to Step Up To Life is presented on many of the web pages at WindowView. Without further explanation we offer you the steps here ... knowing that depending on what you have seen or may yet explore in the window ... these steps will be the most important of your life ...